Det danske Fredsakademi
Kronologi over fredssagen og international politik 16. september 2004 / Timeline September 16, 2004
Version 3.515. September 2004, 17. September 2004
09/16/2004
30,000 Nukes ... And the Voters Don't Know Where Bush and Kerry
Stand?
http://hnn.us/articles/7078.html
By Lawrence S. Wittner
In the run-up to the Iraq war, the threats posed by weapons of mass
destruction (WMDs) were exhaustively discussed by the politicians
and the pundits. But, in the aftermath of that conflict, when no
WMDs were to be found, they became an embarrassment to the war
enthusiasts, who conveniently forgot about them. Certainly, the
mass media, only recently filled with alarms about nuclear attacks,
have said remarkably little about nuclear weapons over the past
year.
This is unfortunate. Despite the nuclear arms control and
disarmament treaties of the past, 30,000 nuclear weapons remain in
existence, with the potential for annihilating civilization.
Furthermore, a number of nations appear to be in the process of
building them. And, finally, the two major party candidates for
president -- George W. Bush and John Kerry -- have taken positions
on nuclear weapons that diverge markedly.
Since becoming president, Bush has unilaterally withdrawn the
United States from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty,
refused to support ratification of the 1996 Comprehensive Test Ban
Treaty (ratified at this point by 115 nations), and has developed
guidelines that expand the possibilities for using nuclear weapons
in a variety of situations, including "surprising military
developments."
Furthermore, despite the Bush administration's criticism of other
nations for developing nuclear weapons, it has flouted U.S.
commitments under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty of 1968. In
that treaty and in its periodic updates, the nuclear powers,
including the United States, pledged to work toward divesting
themselves of nuclear weapons. But there has been no move along
these lines during the Bush administration. The only nuclear arms
control measure negotiated by the president is the Strategic
Offensive Reductions Treaty, signed with Russia in May 2002.
Although, ostensibly, this measure will reduce the number of
strategic nuclear warheads that are deployed on U.S. and Russian
missiles, there is no deadline for the reduction, the deactivated
warheads will simply be kept in storage, and the treaty will
terminate in 2012, after which its provisions can be ignored or
forgotten.
Rather than eliminate nuclear weapons, the Bush administration has
chosen to build new ones. In the president's 2005 budget, he
requested $36.6 million for research on new nuclear weapons,
including "mini-nukes" and the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (the
so-called "bunker buster"). An uneasy Congress is still grappling
with this proposal.
In this same budget, the president requested another $30 million to
reduce the time necessary to resume U.S. nuclear testing. If new
nuclear weapons are to be built, such testing is necessary. And the
resumption of testing would also have some other important
consequences. It would bring an end to the great power moratorium
on nuclear testing that has been observed by Russia, China,
Britain, and France since 1996. Some or all of these nations would
then resume nuclear testing themselves, building new nuclear
weapons and adding to the vast nuclear stockpiles that they (and
terrorists) can draw upon.
Not surprisingly, the official web site of the Bush re-election
campaign says nothing about nuclear arms control and disarmament,
but lauds the administration's leadership in building new kinds of
weapons -- without, by the way, mentioning that a number of these
new weapons are nuclear.
John Kerry has taken a stand that is much more in line with the
Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, as well as with the arms control
and disarmament policies of past presidents, both Democratic and
Republican. He has criticized the Bush administration's withdrawal
from the ABM Treaty and lauded the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty
(CTBT). "The failure of the United States to ratify the CTBT," he
declared, "will seriously undercut our ability to continue our
critical leadership role in the global nuclear non-proliferation
regime."
Kerry has also attacked the building of new U.S. nuclear weapons,
stating: "What kind of message does it send when we're asking other
countries not to develop nuclear weapons but developing new ones
ourselves?" Speaking in June 2003, he stated: "It is absurd to
think the United States will start development on a new generation
of nuclear weapons at the same moment we seek the world's support
in an effort to halt the spread of nuclear weapons and
technology."
The official Kerry campaign website declares that the Democratic
presidential candidate will work to "end production of new fissile
material for nuclear weapons by negotiating a global ban on
production of new material." On this site, Kerry also promises to
strive to "reduce existing stocks of nuclear weapons and materials
by ending development of the new generation of nuclear weapons" and
by "accelerating reductions in U.S. and Russian nuclear
arsenals."
Unfortunately, most presidential campaign coverage in the mass
media ignores these significant differences between the two
candidates on nuclear weapons issues. But the differences are real.
Voters should recognize that, in November 2004, they have an
important choice to make when it comes to the future of nuclear
weapons -- and perhaps their own future, as well.
Published with permission from History News Network.
 |
 |